Locke
John Locke was born on August 29, 1632 in Wrighton, England and died October 28, 1704 in Essex, England. He was a widely influential political philosopher and writer during the Enlightenment period and beyond. Being a member of the progressive Whig party, he was an ardent supporter of the British Parliament, as opposed to the Monarchy. His most influential works are A Letter Concerning Toleration, his Two Treatises of Government, and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Perhaps most notably, his political philosophy is reflected in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the idealism of the American Revolution. This wiki will be primarily concerned with Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and his views presented therein discussing the state of nature, the state of war, property, representative government, and the dissolution of government and how these relate to the course themes of the Knave, the King, and the Citizen. Dominion Locke begins his Second Treatise by addressing a false notion that had developed, in which kings and queens have ruled under divine right. Dominion over the world and it's children, as given by God to Adam, is the argument set forth for divine rights to moarchies. Locke refutes this by stating clearly "that if he had dominion his heirs had no right to it... can the right of succession... be certainly determined..." Therefore, how can a monarch rule through this divine right? He also strikes down the notion of Adam's "paternal jurisdiction", by highlighting the mistakes in reasoning in this "paternal" authority argument. This argument is further discussed in deeper depth. The question remains if someone wasn't always in authority, than whose authority did man follow? The State of Nature and of War The law of nature Locke begins to address the authority in which pre-political men answered to. In nature men are in a "state of perfect freedom...and a state also of equality..." This state allows liberty in which one can purge himself of possessions, but cannot end his or another creatures life in his possession. This destruction of human life goes against the preservation of man and God. Men are under the authority of God and as such can not harm another man or his life, health, liberty, or property. The reasoning would conclude that the Lord is the only authority and men are his property and are subject no other authority. The law of nature, in the name of preservation, gives men the executive power to uphold the law when another man transgresses it. Upholding the law of nature This idea of individual men holding the executive power and being only subject to God and natural law is much different than a Hobbesian view. The fact that men are reasonable and self preserving is directly opposite to Hobbes, and allows men to be the executive power in disputes. When a man breaks the law, "...every man hath the right to punish the offender.." Locke adds that punishment should occur within reason and restraint. Locke specifies that punishments have "Two distinct rights...of punishing the crime for restraint and preventing the like offence..." This is another measure of prevention, in which a man can slay another if that man has murdered, like a wild beast without proper reason. Punishments must be just, because passion and revenge can lead to a lack of restraint. Due to this reason someone must have an unbiased judgement to carryout the law. Locke makes notice of the proposal of a king being that person. No need for a king Locke than reasons that a call for monarchs is absurd for being a mere man himself can not rightfully make fair judgement, and instead that men will be answerable for their over reaction. Locke again tears down the tier of the King in the courses trio motif. A monarch is a man who in nature should be equal to all, and this sense of kingly authority is given God and natural law. It is up to all men to preserve this law and be an executive power. This than would beg the question: What is the bounds in the Sate of War? The State of War Locke proclaims "The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction...not passionate or hasty..." but a preservation of the man's life from another. Locke declares that anyone "...who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him..." Any attempt on one's freedom is an attempt on everyone's freedom, and will be met with aggression. An example Locke puts forth is the right of a man to kill a thief. A thief who is to rob a man of his possessions, a violation of nature, engages in the state of war. This gives one the right to assume a threat on his life; and since one can not receive reparation if dead, he is allowed to kill the thief. It is only when the aggressor offers peace is the sate of war concluded. Locke concludes that in the state of war the only appeal there is to is to God in the heavens. This Locke adds, "...is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature..." Kings impose a state of war This again places the king position under attack again, because anyone who assumes control and sets a slave like atmosphere is a direct threat to man. This allows a right to attack this direct threat and justifies a limit on a powerful executive. Locke also establishes a basis for greater control of the Citizen, and a check on the knaves who try to undermine the common good. It is the citizens duty to uphold the liberty of man and see to it that an absolute power must not occur. This state of war also issues the righteous an opportunity to defend themselves from those knaves who try to undermined their freedom. The states of nature and war are the reason a call for protection occurs and why humans find themselves in a political society. Locke will later elaborate on the evolution of these two states. Concerning Property and Natural Right Much the same as Thomas Hobbes, Locke begins by stating that man is born into a state of nature, however his philosophy breaks from Hobbes when he states that in the state of nature labor defines ownership and is itself limited by two rules; logically, Locke presents a much stronger argument than Hobbes. Both philosophers agree that man is born free and equal into a state of nature with every other man. As stated above, that perfect state of nature is governed by the law of nature, namely, reason. Reason dictates equality between all men and therefore requires that they not infringe upon another’s rights so long as they remain in this state. However, whereas Hobbes’ state of nature inevitably leads to the state of war over the conflict of natural right and property ownership (as he states in De Cive, "it is to be accounted for the state of nature; which is the state of war" (Hobbes 234)), in Locke’s state of nature this war is delayed (though not altogether prevented) by the introduction of labor. Or, as the English say, labour. In Locke’s philosophy, labor is the dividing line between things that are held in the common and things which are held as private property. He states that a man has a natural right over something only after he has, “mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own” (Locke 13). Labor, therefore, creates natural right. Furthermore, Locke limits labor so that a man may not take too much. The first limit is that of spoilage. According to Locke a man may take, “as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils” (Locke 14). A man should only take as much out of the common as he can use at any one time. He knows he has taken too much when some is left unused and it spoils. The second limit is referred to as “enough and as good” (Locke 13). Through this, Locke states that after a man has taken something from the common, he should leave the same amount for other men to use and as good a quality the thing as he has taken, or else he has taken more than his fair share. If another man may not get an equal amount and quality of a thing, then an inequality exists in the state of nature. Through labor and its two limits Locke presents a different idea on the how the state of nature functions and in contrast to Hobbes, a much stronger state that does not automatically lead to war. With respect to natural right and property, Locke makes a much stronger argument than Thomas Hobbes. When Locke is discussing the need for labour to define property he uses the simple example of food. Locke states, “he that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak…has certainly appropriated them to himself” (Locke 13). There are any number of moments within the gathering and eating when it can be said that the acorns are owned by the man and no one else. Certainly by the time the man’s body has gained nourishment from the food the acorns are his and could never possibly belong to anyone else because they now only exist as energy joined inseparably to his body. Hobbes fails to make the distinction that there are things in the world which can never be re-appropriated after they have been claimed. He wrongly states that, "...although any man might say of every thing, this is mine, yet could he not enjoy it..." (Hobbes 117). This miss assumption leaves his ideas on natural right incomplete and open for revision. Locke goes in the other direction stating that because there are things over which a man may take absolute ownership, the reason and equality of man should lead him to respect the natural right over all things to which a man claims ownership, so long as that second man has not taken more than his share and only what he can use. As opposed to Hobbes’ pessimistic view of man, Locke believes that men who govern themselves according to reason will less often infringe upon another’s rights. Locke’s argument is stronger because he takes the more optimistic view of man in the state of nature. Possible Emergence of the Knave However, Locke also takes into account the introduction of money with which property can be enlarged beyond a man’s natural limit to consume, and through this, the knave can slip in. Through money, man is able to own more than what he can use and so inequality is formally introduced. According to Locke, if a man hoards his money and refuses to use it to employ others then he has a right to do so because nothing is being spoiled, he is not taking further ownership over anything, and he is not actively harming anyone else’s property. However, the man has become a sort of knave. Locke views this greed as pointless and counterproductive to commerce. Instead of hoarding money a man with excess means should employ others and trade in order to increase his own as well as the general welfare. By not contributing to the common good in this way, he is not harming others, although if too many men were to do this, commerce would become stagnant. Therefore, this behavior should be curtailed so as to prevent too many greedy knaves from eventually hurting others. From Conjugal to Civil Society Locke stresses the point that if all people are born with equal right to freedom. Then why must they be under their parents control at birth? He states that it is because people are born without reason; a necessary tool to be a functional member of society. He defines civil society by noting what is not ''paternal or conjugal society. He spent a long time stressing this because it was common for men who were in no way paternally related to the subject to not only be the political authority but also be the paternal authority in a way. Locke displays paternal power based on an assumption that a young man has not yet fully developed the power of reason so he is still seen as needed to be under parental control. That Political Power cannot be paternal because it entails that people cannot reason or it notes reason and thus becomes powerless. A similar description applies to the conjugal power situations Locke describes. They cannot serve as models for civil society because they are based on one of two relationships--master/slave or parent/child. Both are poor models for civil society: Locke has defined slavery as an extension of the state of war, and the parental model we have already discredited as invalid. Locke opens this chapter stating that the governing factors absolutely have to be agreed on by the majority. Once a person enters into civil society they deem themselves subject to the power of majority and agrees to live by the decisions of the majority. He states that since people are born into some kind of government, they are not free and are free to change it how they see fit but only once they are united. Yet if they don’t choose to change it they are consenting to being ruled and as we know "consent makes any one a member of any commonwealth."(Locke ch 9). Locke repeats himself in stating why a logical person would enter a society and it entails to assure the protection of their lives, liberties, and estates, all of which Locke considers ''property. He finds flaws with nature stating it lacks three crucial factors "an established, settled, known law"; "a known and indifferent judge"; and the "power to back and support the sentence" which is why he sees a society where people are all giving up some rights to ensure others is superior to nature and why nature can’t really work. The Common Wealth and Legislative Power Locke discusses that the community has a choice in how they would form their government. They have an option of democracy, which they utilize the legislative powers for themselves. They have an option of a monarchy, which they elect a single individual to have power. Lastly, they also have an option of an oligarchy, which they submit the legislative power to a few select people. Locke notes that "commonwealth" does not particularly mean democracy. Commonwealth is a common interest by the community that promotes the good for all, like the common good. It is a beneficial factor for the community solely. Locke mentions that even though there is still high power governing over the citizens, the citizens still hold supremacy. The people have the right to make alterations towards the legislation and still have a voice towards decisions that are being executed. Therefore, the community always has the upper hand over all. Yet, even though the citizens of the city have the true supreme power, the legislature still remains supreme when it comes to the government itself. The role of the citizens in the government are visible through artificial representation of the legislature. The citizens have control of the legislature. Locke states that the executive may have power over the legislature but it does not control it. If the executive decides to go against the legislature’s actions when it is required, the executive is conducting an act of war against the citizens since the legislature is their artificial representative. The citizens have the right to protect and regulate the function of the legislature when the state requires it. Locke also indicates a change of representatives in the legislature is affected by the population of the citizens in the city. Therefore, the citizens control the number of representatives that are in the legislature. More representatives in the legislature equal to the amount of involvement of the citizens in making the decisons that are going to be executed by the executive power. According to Locke, "in well ordered commonwealths, where the good of the whole is so considered as it ought, the legislative power is put into the hands of divers persons who, duly assembled, have by themselves or jointly with others a power to make laws...to take care that they make them for the public good." (67) Locke does state that the legislature is the voice of the people. They are the ones who are representing the citizens of the city. The citizens may not speak individually, but they have jointly determined which representative will be best in protecting the public and act for the common good. Dissolution of Government Locke discusses the dissolution of a government in Chapter 19. According to Locke, the government will start to dissolve when it stops functioning for the people. The government stops functioning for the people when it is taken over a tyrannical executive power or the executive power does not make the laws passed by the legislature important anymore. Locke states that " the usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them." (96) This shows that the foreign force may be the tyrant trying to reshape the government that was created by the citizens through legislature. The tyrant can ruin the laws that were formed by the citizens. To avoid falling into a full tyrannical power, the citizens have a chance to try to form another legislature that will benefit the community and be interested in the common good. Locke also discusses that the citizens are the best judges to who will protect them and who will fully represent their best interests. Locke states that "upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good." (112) This shows that the citizens have the power to how their government should be formed. Even if there is a tyrannical executive power rising, the citizens are able to change the legislature. The citizens are the supreme power of the community because they have similar interests, which is creating laws that will benefit the community and keep their best interest as a priority. Locke and Present Day Conflicts Expansion of the U.S. Government Most likely, Locke would disagree with the way the United States government has expanded bureaucratically. However, because Locke's idea that the sole reason for the institution of governments is to protect property and execute the law of nature, he would probably disagree with the current governments of just about every country in the world. But, because the founding fathers of the U.S. took so much inspiration from his philosophy, it might interest him more than most others that the U.S. is run by such a huge bureaucracy. The Congress is not directly beholden to the people's will, as Locke described they should be. There are many mechanisms to stall legislation and even after a bill has been voted on, there may be an entire new set of hurtles for it to jump through to become a law. Locke envisioned a simple legislature that passed the laws required by the citizens. In the basic idea, this still holds true, but it has become much more convoluted with bureaucracy and red tape. Locke's ideas are rooted in simplicity and limits, something the bureaucratic engines of the the United States government are currently lacking. The Ground Zero Mosque Lately, while searching for images on Locke; i've noticed a lot of people quoting him on the mosque. The people on these websites claim that Obama is taking a sense of divine right of kings, and is going against the law of nature in his support of the ground zero mosque. Locke would strike down these claims. First, their is no claim to divine right and the government his power in the government is limited in these matters. Obama can give his opinion on the matter that it is their 1st amendment right to build a Mosque and is in the best interest of the nation not to discriminate against a minority and to uphold the law. He can not take land from someone and use government money to build a religious building, whether a mosque, church, or synagogue. This has not been the case. So their is no justification of the divine right's argument. Second, the executive is following a code set by Locke of executing "the laws...the legislative hath..."(153) put forward. The law of nature of each man to judge each other is used inappropriately. The execution of the law of nature is only when one's liberty is encroached. Therefore, it would seem that Locke would suggest it is the people wanting to build the mosque are having their natural rights treaded on. Locke also states that "...it is unreasonable for men to be judges... and that civil government is the proper remedy..." (13) When men join a government they forfeit their natural law. Men who use this law of nature as a reason to circumvent a man's liberty to build his own property are, in fact violating their rights to property. In upholding the constitutional law, and protecting the commonwealth of the right of property our government is just. Locke would agree with the right to build and make the property yours, and the government is responsible for upholding your liberties. It turns out that Zazu and Scar had something to do with the theft of Dr. Church's coconuts.